The PROFESSORS' BLOG – Science, Culture & Human Rights For All

Sputnik News interviews Swedish Doctors for Human Rights Chairman, on UN Security Council draft resolution ref. MH17

artedenoli — Wed, 05 Aug 2015 14:14:22 +0000

On the The UN Security Council draft resolution of 29 July 2015, to convene an international tribunal to investigate the MH17 crash. Questions by Michael Hughes, U.S. correspondent of Sputnik. Answers by Marcello Ferrada de Noli.

The Sputnik News’ report containing the interview excerpts was published here, and by Global Research, 30 July 2015.

– Sputnik: Do you think it is premature or prudent to draft such a resolution or create such a body at this point?

Drafting such a resolution at this point is neither prudent nor credible; I’d say it would just embarrass the UNSC – for the proposition is on the verge of the absurd:

Firstly, governments among those to compose this would-to-be committee should be instead investigated by the international community for their possible responsibility in the MH17 crash.

For instance, international regulations make a country responsible for the fly routes they assign to the aircrafts flying their air space. Particularly in this case, Ukraine authorities have to be scrutinized on whether – as it is reported in Maj Wechesselmann analysis [1]- they would have changed the MH17 rout with regard to same flights of previous days.

Secondly, the governments and media in those countries that would be likely integrating the committee have already – without exhibiting beyond-doubt proof – ascribed the MH17 crash to the Donbas militia [this was the case of Sweden’s Foreign Ministry at the time, who declared “MH17 most likely shot down by pro-Russia separatists“]. Even more, they have emphatically pointed to Russia as the ultimate responsible.

Thirdly, countries like Ukraine have questionably credibility in this particular matter of “investigating what happened with MH17”, as they have confiscated – and made secret – material that is essential for the investigation. This is the case of the confiscated tapes by the Ukraine Intelligence Services of the communications between the control tower in Kiev and the MH17 pilots.

Fourthly, the work hypothesis under treatment by the governmental institutions – added the stream media – in those countries, have consistently excluded any opinion or even investigative report from experts that put forward alternative explanations on the possible causes of the crash – for instance mentioning the involvement of Ukraine forces. An illustration of this is the broadcasting of a report done on the 16 July 2015 by the State-owned Swedish Radio, Studio 1. [Content of the broadcasted program analyzed here]

Further. In the western countries, the public is depleted with Russophobic information from both the part of their governments and media, a propaganda devise these governments had deployed to legitimate citizens the sanctions against Russia, and the military and cold war escalating. Russia has already portrayed as the “bad guy” in the film, and the establishment of this committee – composed and approved by those very same countries – will be viewed by the public, “naturally”, as a part of the punishment that the collective US-EU indulges against the Russian people.

So, among the absurdities of this proposition, of the investigative committee proposition, is that it is not really needed by the Western countries. Not needed at all.

– Sputnik: Should the UNSC at least wait for the Dutch Safety Board to release their final report in October? Why or why not?

What I see here is an alteration of the democratic order, not to mention the issue of transparency.

The proper order should be this instead:

First the Dutch Safety Board has to make public all the material available – and they should have done it long time ago – so other experts around the world would contribute with fact-based, scientific conclusions. If the UNSC draft would be approved, most possible the Dutch Safety Board shall continue keeping all materials and preliminary cons´conclusions in scret – on behalf of the new investigation committee.

With regard to the Dutch Safety Board own final report, this report should be given directly to the public – through its publication on line, for instance – before the governments adopt a decision as to how proceeding further (for instance if they would ask UN for a committee, etc.).

I mean – regarding your question – the right order in this matter is that the public in the respective countries has to be given the chance to have its opinion, and then this opinion be heard by their governments. Not the other way around, where the opinions of those in power are those that are imposed on the public – with the help of subservient media.

Of course, the Dutch Safety Board own final report shall first be delivered, then discussed, verified and validated, before the UN establishes any investigative body on this issue.

Corollary, if the Dutch Safety Board is not considered that vital or important by UNSC, neither there is a reason for not making their material and deliberations known by the public already from now.

– Sputnik: Finally, do you think presenting such a proposal could be divisive? Especially when members of the UNSC need to work together on a number of critical issues?

‘Divisive’? I would say it is more than that; it would be bringing fuel to this unfortunate cold war that was re-started by the military and financial interests of the West. So, I will answer your question, quoting a professor colleague from New York University, Stephen F. Cohen, who referred to the nowadays situation as a re-edition of a “cold war”, while marking that the epicentre of this new cold war is not any longer Berlin, but it has moved by the U.S. “right to the Russian borders”.

Prof. Marcello Ferrada de Noli PhD

Chairman, Swedish Doctors for Human Rights

MH17 – The facts and the libel

artedenoli — Wed, 05 Aug 2015 14:04:22 +0000

Swedish Doctors for Human Rights (@SWDHR) has followed human-rights related events Eastern Ukraine since the tragic events of the The Odessa massacre of 2 May 2014. A variety of war episodes – which fall into the war-crime categories according to international treaties – have been also commented in our sites. [1]

The downing of the Malaysian MH17 on the 17 of July 2014, where nearly three hundred civilians from different nationalities were killed, it unmistakable constitutes a most serious war crime. Further, imputing such a hideous crime to the leaders of any organization or government, in absence of conclusive evidence, it should be equated in the ethical level of a human-rights related breach, not to mention libel. Worst, if it would be concluded – as suggested in a recent analysis by Maj Wechselmann published in The Professors’ Blog – [2] that the MH17 downing it would have been an stage operation – such a false-flag at expense of 298 civilian lives would constitute a double war crime.

MH17 – The facts and the libel. A false-flag at expense of 298 civilian lives would be a double war crime

By Prof. Marcello Ferrada de Noli, Chairman, Swedish Doctors for Human Rights

1. The speculations

Biased speculations from NATO’s client-media kept flowing against the revolutionary forces in East Ukraine since the first minute.

But not only speculations, aggravating accusations too. The then Sweden’s Foreign Ministry Carl Bildt declared to the Swedish TV, emphatically,

“Of course Russian separatists were behind the shooting down of the Malaysian MH17″.[3].

A few days later, on the 20 of July 2014, the foreign minister elaborated further in his own blog (Alla dessa dagar), “There hardly exist any doubt that (MH17) was shot down by the pro-Russian separatists”. [4]

Bildt, 20 July 2014

Nowadays, this State-promoted libel is increasingly evolving to targeting instead Russia itself. This, to the extreme of publicizing the notion that “the robot was sent over from the Russian side as a deliberate decision by the Russian military – or even from higher level – to the separatists’ area, to shoot down the plane” [State-owned Swedish Radio, details down below] [5].

Obviously, a public releasing of all the Intelligence gathered on the MH17 crash would have set the record straight. Why have this not happened? Why countries with sophisticated Intelligence capability have not divulged their satellite or radar imaginary over the site crash – as Russia did at an early stage, already on the 21 of July 2014? [6]

The U.S., with its formidable surveillance system – which in numerous occasions has given proof of in recent years – has undoubtedly a detailed intelligence gathered on and around the MH17 crash. Yet, the U.S. keeps refusing to share that information. [7] Ukraine confiscated the tapes recording communications between Kiev’s tower-control and the pilots, [8] but they have kept the recordings secret. After a year that the British authority Air Accidents Investigative Branch got the two black-boxes sent by Ukraine for analysis, [9], still no official information has been delivered to the public.

Most revealing, on the 8 of August 2014 Ukraine, Netherlands, Austria and Belgium signed a pact on that no results of the investigation would be published “unless all four countries agreed”. [10] This agreement was effectuated at a request by Ukraine.

2. The escalating of NATO presence in the Ukraine civil war corresponds to an escalation in the libel around the MH17 causes. After a year evidence stills is kept secret. Is there such a evidence?

The news on this tragedy was first brought in Sweden by Aftonbladet. In the first two lines, long before the description of the events, the paper published; “U.S. Intelligence services certain that Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 shot down by an air-defense robot”, meaning it was shot from the ground. [11] That was only hours after the crash. Predictably, shortly thereafter the Foreign Minister of Sweden, Mr. Carl Bildt declared early in the morning in the State-owned Swedish Radio with his own add-on: “the plane was likely shot down by pro-Russian separatists” [In the small text under the minister’s portrait, it reads: “Carl Bildt has been pushing for tougher sanctions from the EU against Russia”].

The reports that minister Bildt had at his disposal did not contain any such evidence to support his statement. Although rather long down in the Aftonbladet‘s text, it was nevertheless written there that the “American Intelligence services said that it was unclear from which side the missile was fired” (and Aftonbladetacknowledges also that the Ukrainian armed forces have such weaponry in their arsenal). [11] What proof had Bildt to made that accusation? None.

One year after the MH17 crash, we left reassured that Sweden’s position remains at the same level of biased Russophobia – and that the official media still serves as direct megaphone of Carl Bildt biased narrative, no matter the change of government:

Bildt, 17 July 2015

On the eve of the first anniversary of the MH-17 tragedy, the State-owned Swedish Radio had a long reportage in its main program Studio 1. Predictably, the program in its length reasoned on this speculative dilemma: whether the shooting down was perpetrated by pro-Russian rebels in Donbass, or – and this was the main thesis elaborated – whether the plane was shot down by the Russians themselves and on orders from high level! Not a single word was broadcasted in regards to widely known publications that have pointed out to a completely different scenario, namely, findings indicating that Malaysian Airlines MH17 may have been shot down by a fighter-jet. [12]

Amidst the monotonous Russo-phobic narrative filling that Swedish Radio broadcasting on the 16 of July, a comment uttered by the speaker did strike into my attention. The speaker said, referring to the MH17 shooting down,

”A turning point in the Ukraine conflict” (“En vänt punkt i den Ukraina konflikten”)

With the above words, the Swedish Radio program evoked at the auditions – Inadvertently – the series of false flag incidents that History has recorded in regards to the need of escalating wars. [13]

Thereafter, the Swedish Radio went directly into cherish Carl Bilt’s thesis, and thus opened the subject with the preposterous allegation, that Russia would have transported the BUK missile launcher from Russia the day before, deliberately (medveten), and with the specific purpose subject of shooting down the MH17!

The main analysis in the radio program is given then to the Swedish Radio own correspondent (Sten Sjöström) who recently had visited the area of the crash. This is what he said:

“During all the summer (after the MH17 downing) the war was conducted in an international level. Before that, the war was seen mostly as a local Eastern Ukraine happening. But because, suddenly, an airplane that flew from Amsterdam to Asia was shot down over that area, carrying people from very many nations, and that suddenly the airplane shots down – that changed the entire picture of this war; and it then led to colossal strong reactions against Russia, immediately. Russia said that it is necessary to wait until all the crash investigations are complete, but the facts are that Russia’s position became very strongly weakened”. [14]

Then the Swedish Radio asks its own correspondent:

SR asking journalist: “If it will be so, that the Commission of Inquiry concludes that it was a Russian missile fired from a launcher-ramp introduced the day before from Russia who shot down the Malaysian aircraft over Ukraine, how it will affect Russian politics, both domestically and in relation to Europe?” [15]

SR answering journalist: “If it can be established that it was the separatists, it is one thing; but –as you were indicating – if one can prove that the robot was sent over from the Russian side as a deliberate decision by the Russian military – or from even higher level – to the separatists’ area, toshoot down the plane, it definitely led to very serious consequences. It will tighten the situation, definitely. “ [16]

The State-owned Swedish Radio, likewise they did on the days of the MH17 tragedy when they published Carl Bildt’s first stage in the anti-Russia propaganda escalation, houres after the MH17 crash: “MH17 likely downed by separatists” [17] (two days after Bildt meant “beyond doubt”, to finally putting the blame directly on a Russian Army unit).

The State-owned Swedish Radio – widely known as megaphone of the political and cultural subservience of Sweden – meant that because of that episode (the MH17 downing) the Ukraine war became a conflict of international proportions. And the Swedish Radio predicts that in a near future it can be worst… for Russia.

3. So, who needed “international proportions” of such a war? Who needed the MH17 to be shot down?

After the shooting of the MH17, the anti-Russian psyops in the Western media exploded in a frenetic path. Simultaneously, Russophobic Carl Bild – who according to WikiLeaks exposures would be a U.S. Information Officer – could easily put forward in the EU forum the U.S. positions on a hardening of sanctions against Russia. Further, NATO war exercises started to be implemented “in countries bordering Russia and the Baltic Sea” (U.S. Lt. General Ben Hodges), [17] and from then on the escalation of the U.S. military intervention in Ukraine began, and continues now unabated. U.S. troops commenced first the training of the Ukrainian National Guard, and now continues with the training of the Ukraine Army – while the military aid has escalated from “non-lethal gear”, then military vehicles prepared to carry machine guns, to the sending of heavy weapons asked by the Pentagon.

In this context, no public became really surprised – and that is the whole idea with an escalation strategy – when massive American troops start exercise operations kilometres of the Russian border. In the NewsVoice article “Severe tensions between Nato, Russia and Ukraine could lead to a greater war – Warmongers should think twice” we quote Professor Stephen F. Cohen, New York University, who referred to the nowadays situation as a re-edition of a “cold war”, while marking that the epicentre of this new cold war is not any longer Berlin, but it has moved by the U.S. “right to the Russian borders”. [18]

In other words, who had to expect a geopolitical harvesting with the shooting of MH17? And for whom instead such a deed was supposed to signify a geopolitical setback?

Another publication of Swedish Radio of the same 16 of July, emphatically stated in big headlines:

“Proof indicates that pro-Russian rebels shot down Malaysian passenger-plane” [19]

That was also a false-flag wise deceiving

The content of the information drastically contradicts the above emphatic headlines-statement. In the online publication is given that, “the conclusion is given in a draft to the preliminary report of Netherland investigators…reports CNN”. [20]

I have listened to the corresponding recordings of the broadcasted program. It turns out that the information was done “anonymous” by two Americans. And that these two anonymous Americans – which are the ultimate source of the Swedish Radio’s aggravating statement – have nothing to do with the Netherland investigative committee! [5].

Swedish Radio’s illegal media-blackout

In fact, there exist in Sweden written impartiality-reporting rules, that he Public service TV and Radio have the obligation to comply with. They are bound to give both versions of important debatable issues. Obviously, the broadcasting authorities do not care to follow such rules in cases like this one, when it is a matter of propagate the version of the bosses they serve – against the truly interest of the people of Sweden. And they know they would be acquitted if any one would file against them. For they truly represent those in power. Nevertheless, theyshould have mention that there are other facts on the table. Or at least other interpretations that differ from their source, “two anonym Americans that contacted the media outlet CNN”.

They should have said, at least, that the Russian Defence Ministry had call to a press conference –most likely attended by the Swedish correspondents – where they presented to the public the facts their own Intelligence and surveillance systems had have gathered on the MH17 incident. [6] Those facts prove that an Ukrainian fighter jet SU-25 did fly at that occasion in the vicinity of the MH17 plane. And there is a video too, with the radar imaginary. The Video was uploaded by Russian TV, RT [to download the video click on the second image below]. And it was not a production of RT’s own news, or sourced in two anonymous individuals – like in the case of the CNN-report in which the Swedish Radio Studio 1 based its unilateral, biased program of the 16 of July 2015.

The RT video shows the actual press conference by high-rank identifiable generals of the Russian Army. The same Russian Army that Bildt and his Swedish Radio Studio 1 have the boldness to accuse – with no proof – to have in cold blood killed the MH17 298 civilians. Why would Swedish Radio totally hide this information from the Swedish public? And while elaborating at length just precisely the theme of West being investigating not whether, but “how” the Russians downed the MH17?

Because the shooting down of the MH17 it goes corollary with the accusations that Russia bears the responsibility for it. Because the tragedy and the blaming are only dos caras de la misma moneda – the two faces of a same coin, the formulation of a “False Flag” hypothesis around the shooting of MH17 is not alien to either logics nor to experience. History, that is – which knows that false flag operations might end in Nuremberg trials, such as the one starting WWII. The Tonkin Gulf incidents, the “weapons of mass destruction”, they are all waiting for judgement.

Notes and References

[1] Swedish Doctors for Human Rights (SWDHR)

[2] Maj Wechsselmann, Was the shooting down of MH17 a false-flag operation?, The Professors’ Blog, 29 July 2015.

[3] Dagens Nyheter, Johan Croneman: Konsensus råder, tyst det är i husen, mediehusen. DN, 19 August 2014.

[4] Carl Bildt, MH17 och Gaza i Bryssel, Alla dessa dagar, 20 July 2014: “det råder knappast någon tvekan om att det var proryska separatister som sköt ner planet”.

[5] Swedish Radio, Studio Ett, 16 July 2015

[6] RT. Ukrainian Su-25 fighter detected in close approach to MH17 before crash – Moscow, 21 July 2014

[7] Sputnik News, CIA Refuses to Share Updated Intelligence on MH17 Crash – US Journalist, 27 March 2015

[8] BBC [Reporting: Helier Cheung, Amber Dawson, Tom Geoghegan, Tessa Wong, Emma Brant, Alastair Lawson, & Patrick Jackson, As it happened: Reaction to MH17 Malaysia Airlines plane crash in Ukraine, 18 July 2014.

[9] The Independent, MH17 crash: Black boxes arrive in the UK from Ukraine for analysis, 23 July 2014.

[10] James O’Neill, Why the Secrecy on the Mh17 Investigation, Counterpunch, 19 December 2024.

[11] Aftonbladet, Svår flygkrasch i Ukraina – minst 298 rapporteras döda, 17 July 2014. (“Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 sköts ner med en luftvärnsrobot, slår amerikansk underrättelsetjänst fast.”).

[12] M Ferrada de Noli, New findings may indicate that Malaysian Airlines MH17 was shot down by a fighter-jet. The Professors’ Blog. Updates, starting 5 August 2014.

[13] Robert Parry, MH-17 Mystery: A New Tonkin Gulf Case?, 17 July 2015

[14] Swedish Radio, Studio Ett, 16 July 2015: ”Hela sommaren (efter MH17 sköts ner) det kriget fördes i ett internationell plan; men innan dess det sägs mest som en lokal Öst Ukraina företeelse. Men i o med att helt plötsligt en flygplan som flög frän Amsterdam till Asien blev nerskjuten over det området, om med folket från väldig manga nationer, och som helt plötsligt drogs ner, då det ändrade hela bilden ut av det här kriget; och det ledde då till väldig starka reaktioner mot Ryssland, omedelbart. Ryssland har sagt att man måste vänta att alla haveri utredningar är klara, med den faktiska situationen var att den Rysslands position försvagades väldigt stark”.

[15] Swedish Radio, Studio Ett, 16 July 2015: “Om det blir så att haverikommissionen slår fast att det var en Ryss robot från en avfyrningsramp infördes dagen innan från Ryssland som sköt ner Malaysia flygplanet över Ukraina, hur kommer det att påverka rysk politiken både inrikes och i relation till Europa?” Id.

[16] Swedish Radio, Studio Ett, 16 July 2015: “Om man kan slå fast att det var separatisterna, det är en sak, men – som du var in på – om man kan bevisa att roboten skickades over från ryska sidan som en medveten beslut från ryska militären, eller ännu högre upp, till separatist området för att skjuta ner denna planet, det absolut ledda till väldigt stora konsekvenser. Om man skall kunna bevisa det, det kommer att skärpa situationen, definitivt.” id.

[17] Swedish Radio, Bildt: MH17 likely downed by separatists, 18 July 2014.

[18] M Ferrada de Noli, ANders Romelsjö, Leif Elinder, Severe tensions between Nato, Russia and Ukraine could lead to a greater war – Warmongers should think twice, NewsVoice, 27 March 2015.

[19] Swedish Radio, Bevis pekar på att proryska rebeller sköt ner malaysiskt passagerarplan, 16 July 2015

[20] [“Slutsatsen dras i en utkast till den nederländska utredarnas preliminära rapport om händelsen, då 298 människor omkom, rapporterar CNN”].

* This article was first published by SWEDHR Research & Reports. Vol 2., N° 24, 28 July 2015

The geopolitical aim in the Ukraine Civil War, and the economic consequences for the Ukrainian people – By John Goss

artedenoli — Mon, 03 Aug 2015 08:11:51 +0000

A new guest column at The Professors’ Blog by the British Human Rights advocate John Goss. It gives a historical insight into the Ukraine events starting with the orchestrated Maidan disruptions, and the subsequent escalation into a civil war. In true terms, a US proxy civil war aimed to get Russia involved, the author indicates. A must-read analysis.

A previous version of this analysis, “What the Left Should Learn about Ukraine”

was published at News Junkie Post 20 July 2015.

By John Goss

History of the Ukrainian civil war, February 2014 – February 2015

Prior to what became known as Euromaidan, there were several attempts by the West at regime change in Ukraine. These were known as color revolutions and put into power corrupt right-wing politicians like Yulia Tymoshenko, who was in prison prior to the takeover. Previously these regime changes took place at the ballot box. Euromaidan was a mass protest on Maidan Square in Kiev against the austere policies of the elected President Viktor Yanukovich who, like all heads of state, was living in luxury while ordinary people were suffering. Ukraine looked towards the West, and the majority wanted closer ties and even inclusion in the Euro-zone.

The protest was genuine but there were Western-funded elements who used it as a means to create regime change without an election, in other words a coup d’etat. It is well-known today that Victoria Nuland had hand picked the replacement prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, whom the West had been sponsoring via his rather misleadingly named foundation, Open Ukraine. Since before the coup, its partners included the NATO information and documentation center, Chatham House, the United States State Department, and other organizations through which money can be channeled tax-free.[1]

Elections were due to take place in March 2015. Protests were largely peaceful until on February 18, 2014, when a number of shooters opened fire on a crowd. This triggered further events in which Yanukovich fled in fear for his life. The Western mainstream media covered the Maidan Square protests in some detail, an important fact considering such sparse coverage of the genocide which has taken place in its aftermath, further indicating that our media was, and is, a complicit servant in the overthrow and installation of an illegal regime. According to a leaked telephone conversation between Urmas Paet, the Estonian Foreign Minister, and Catherine Ashton, then Vice President of the European Commission, the gunmen who opened fire in Maidan Square were firing on both sides and were not from the Yanukovich government. Channel 4 did pick up on this.[2] Neither Paet nor Ashton has denied that the intercepted phone call was genuine.

On May 2, 2014, at least 46 people were killed in an organized massacre where many were locked in a Trade Union building which was then set on fire. Kiev has made no serious effort to find out who the perpetrators of this massacre were, because it is quite certain this leads to the very top of government. Professor Marcello Ferrada de Noli knows about fascist regimes and illegally installed dictatorships, having been imprisoned under General Pinochet. He now lives in Sweden and has followed the Ukrainian civil war from the start. Some of the pictures posted on his blog are not for the squeamish but show the reality of brutal forces in a formerly peaceful country. It was pro-junta forces who had been massacring their own people.[3]

Odessa, which has a large populace of Russian speakers, was targeted because, like the people of Donbas many do not wish to be governed by the puppet regime installed by the US in Kiev. Since coming to power, Communism has been banned and Communists cannot stand for election to the Verkhovna Rada (Kiev parliament). There has been a ban on Russian-language programs, and cable companies do not carry Russian channels, which has led to a five-fold increase in the sales of satellite dishes. This pushed a Kiev member of parliament (MP) to instruct the police to smash all the satellite dishes.[4] The murder, or murder made to look like suicide, of opposition politicians and journalists is almost pandemic.[5]

Eric Draitser was born in the United States, but he has a special connection with Ukraine considering that his father emigrated from Odessa to the US. He has advice for those of us on the left. “The question facing leftists internationally is no longer whether they believe there are fascists in Ukraine, or whether they are an important part of the political establishment in the country; this is now impossible to refute. Rather, the challenge before the international left is whether it can overcome its deep-seated mistrust of Russia, and consequent inability to separate fact from fiction, and unwaveringly defend its comrades in Ukraine with the conviction and aplomb of its historical antecedents.”[6]

This message from Eric Draitser cannot be underestimated. There are good thinking people on the left who have been so conditioned in the UK that they do not know what kind of government the West has brought to power in Kiev. Lack of mainstream media coverage of what is actually going on is one problem. The other is the continuous vilification of Russia, Vladimir Putin, and all things Russian without any justification. Some people believe to impose sanctions on Russia was the right decision. Some even believe Russia caused the civil war. This is what Draitser calls this deep-seated mistrust, and it seriously needs to be addressed.

The civil war that followed the deposing of Yanukovich was escalated as soon as Petro Poroshenko became president. Before coming to power he promised to bring peace to Eastern Ukraine. Pravy Sector and Azov forces, many of whose fighters are openly fascist and openly deify the fascist Stepan Bandera, have spearheaded the Kiev government’s attack on its own people living in the East. In this conflict, at least 6,500 people have been killed including many women and children (more than twice as many as were killed in Palestine in another genocide that went on in the same period). Prior to this, there had not been a civil war in Ukraine since the Russian Civil War of 1922.

Poroshenko, a chocolate, and now media, oligarch cannot be trusted. He said he would sell his chocolate concern, Roshen, to concentrate on politics when he became president but failed to do so. He signed the Minsk 1 and Minsk 2 protocols but failed to adhere to their conditions. Not very long after Minsk 2, he was stating openly that it was a pseudo agreement and the fighting would not stop until the self-declared people’s republics of Donetsk and Lugansk were controlled by Kiev and they would fight till the last drop of blood was spilled — he did not mention his own blood. Different interpretations were put on what he said by East and West media.[7] His signature on the foot of an agreement is as worthless in terms of honesty and integrity as that of Herr Adolph Hitler. Thanks to a Wikileaks document it is known that Poroshenko has long been a puppet of the US: at least since 2006 when he accused Tymoshenko of being unprincipled, which is really only a euphemism for her true character.[8] Poroshenko is just as bad and, in another leaked cable from the US, it is shown that the Americans knew that their man in Ukraine was corrupt too. “In response to questions about the logic of making Poroshenko Rada speaker, Bezsmertny said there was no other way to create an Orange coalition. Poroshenko’s reputation was tainted by serious corruption allegations, but he wielded significant influence within Our Ukraine, and his interests had to be accommodated — it was as simple as that, Bezsmertny emphasized.”[9]

In early 2015, President Barack Obama finally admitted that the US had organized regime change, and Victoria Nuland, some fifteen months previously, told a press conference that the US had invested $5 billion over the last 20 years to assist Ukraine in its goals to become supposedly democratic. This was after Yanukovich failed to sign up to a Greece-type austerity deal with Europe, preferring to continue trading with its Russian partner.[10] The plans for regime change had already been started at least a month earlier when the then Ukrainian MP, Oleg Tsarnov, revealed that US ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, was running the non-governmental organization (NGO) Techcamp from the US embassy. The purpose of Techcamp was to train Ukrainians on how to use the media for misinformation while they prepared for a civil war. Throughout Tsarnov’s speech, the fascist parliamentarians are heard chanting abuse, trying to drown out the message.[11] Oleg Tsarnov’s fellow Party of Regions MP, Oleg Kalashnikov, was murdered on April 15, 2015 outside his home after receiving threats from an extreme right-wing group Mirotvoretz (‘Peacekeeper’) due to his anti-fascist outspokenness. Mirotvoretz is supported by Ihor Gerashchenko, a senior advisor to the internal ministry of Ukraine.[12]

What the civil war has economically cost the people of Ukraine

In all wars, it is rarely those who start them who get killed in them. The NATO countries have a terrible record in bombing and occupying formerly peaceful countries like Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, to relieve them of their natural resources and leave them as failed states. More recently US support has been for proxy wars waged by Ukraine on its own people, Israel on Palestine and Saudi Arabia on Yemen. The aim has always been the same, regime change to impose a puppet or pliable government, or alternatively to create conditions of perpetual war until whoever eventually comes to power ends up in dollar debt to financial institutions like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) in order to rebuild their countries. During the Ukraine civil war, for the first time in its history, the IMF, under the directorship of Christine Lagarde made loans to a country at war. Just as the war was starting, in response to a question asking if strict monetary decisions might push Ukraine into the arms of Russia, Lagarde told Judy Woodruff:

“You are right about qualification, meaning that IMF money doesn’t come free.

“IMF — the IMF lends financing to countries, provided that countries do for themselves what they need to do to restore the economy to be able to finance themselves without our support. So, we lend money, and the country takes a road to recovery, makes the hard choices, decides for itself what its economic future will be.

“And it includes what you said, dealing with corruption, restoring the governance, dealing with the right price of energy, restoring the fiscal situation, and making structural reforms that will help Ukraine get back on a solid track.”[13]

In other words the IMF lends to a country in order to create austerity deliberately for its residents, while enriching the suspect banking fraternity. The National Bank of Ukraine, which is the country’s lender of last resort, is run by a governor and a council of seven members from the Rada plus a further seven chosen by the president. In June 2015 Christine Lagarde made a statement on the progress of the IMF’s ongoing loans to Ukraine which suggests this structure is about to change. She welcomes a parliamentary decision “to strengthen the National Bank of Ukraine’s independence . . .” This is part of the ‘far-reaching and structural reforms’ imposed by the IMF as part of the deal to create growth.[14] The Ukraine economy has all the makings of another Greece.

Since the civil war started, the Ukrainian currency, the Hryvnia, has sunk in value, its purchasing power being half what it was before the start of the conflict. At the height of the fighting it was only one third of its former value. What makes it even more arduous for ordinary people is that utility bills have risen and 28 percent of families could not afford to pay their energy bills last winter.[15] Kiev has defaulted on its due payments to Russia for gas. There are protests against the current government not reported in our media. Known as Financial Maidan, longstanding demonstrations have been going on since December 2014.[16] This continues, with protestors calling for Yatsenyuk to resign.[17]

The real reason for the US proxy civil war was to get Russia involved. As such, multiple media attacks on Putin and his policies made daily reading and viewing, while our media was simultaneously bogged down with reports of Russia having government troops and tanks in Ukraine fighting against Kiev’s armies.[18] These reports have been discredited time and again. Not one creditable photograph of these supposed Russian military columns has ever been produced. Earlier in 2015, President Putin went on state television discussing Crimea and the Ukraine civil war. He said if there were Russian troops in Ukraine the conflict would have been over in days. Here is an interview Pravda’s Inna Novokova conducted with Franz Klintsevich, first deputy head of the Russian Faction at the Russian parliament, which puts the Moscow point of view regarding Ukraine. He describes in disturbing detail what would happen to the US if it declared war on Russia and why he thinks Russia will have to clear up the mess after Ukraine collapses.[19] The US is only a fair-weather friend and may already be holding much of Ukraine’s gold.[20]

Vladimir Putin’s popularity has never been so high at home and abroad. He was one of Time Magazine’s 100 most influential figures in the world for 2015.[21] Due to the civil war in Ukraine, Russians have rallied around Putin. Open Ukraine, as previously mentioned, is funded by the West. Another Western-funded opposition party called Open Russia had already virtually disintegrated before the assassination of its leader Boris Nemtsov, an assassination which leaves a number of open questions beyond the scope of this article. The civil war in Ukraine has had exactly the opposite effect from what the West hoped to achieve: regime change in Russia. The cost to Ukrainians has been devastating.

More importantly, while our media has been drumming up the idea that Putin is a warmonger and everything he does is bad, he is actually a peacemaker. Sanctions have hurt Russia, and they have hurt Europe too. European countries were doing good trade with Russia before dollar diplomacy took control. It was Putin’s initiative to get Angela Merkel, François Hollande and Petro Poroshenko round the table to negotiate the Minsk agreements. What also seems to be forgotten is that Putin, although having a short KGB involvement, is a capitalist. Russia is an advanced capitalist country and has been for nearly 25 years. It is no longer the old Soviet Union. Indeed Putin could be a friend to Europe, but the West has chosen to try to alienate him and Russia in its pursuit of global hegemony.

Russia is not the threat though, make no mistake, it would defend itself, were it attacked. There is however an enemy. The Warsaw Pact alliance was set up as a response to the NATO alliance. With the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Warsaw Pact alliance was disbanded. There was no longer any need for NATO’s existence. Instead of winding down its resources, as might be done with munitions factories after a war, it has expanded its scope, swamping up almost all the former Warsaw Pact countries. This expansion is a big threat to Russia and to the countries with NATO bases. Ukraine was one of the last hurdles in a real-world global expansion reminiscent of the politically incorrect board-game Risk. Nearly all the modern large-scale wars have the jackboot footprint of NATO on them.

Editor’s Notes (Junkie Post publication): Photographs one, three, four, six,seven, eight, ten, and eleven by Sasha Maksymenko; photographs two, five, nine, twelve and fourteen from the US Department of State archive.

References

Was the shooting down of MH17 a false-flag operation?

artedenoli — Wed, 29 Jul 2015 08:40:22 +0000

Note by The Professors’ Blog: We publish here a version in English of the analysis around the MH-17 crash, written by the Swedish cultural personality and prize-winner film director Maj Wechselmann [photo at right]. An introductory analysis to this theme [M Ferrada de Noli, “Facts and Libel – A false-flag at expense of 290 civilian lives would be a double war crime”] has been published at SWEDHR Research & Reports, a publication by Swedish Doctors for Human Rights, SWEDHR.

The Professors’ Blog has published, since august 2014, a periodical update with investigations around the causes of the MH-17 crash; those reports suggest overwhelmingly that the MH17 would have been shot down by a jet fighter. The present article – to which The Professors’ Blog (TPB) have added further graphics and a brief comment – was originally published in Swedish at Jinge.se – a blog edited by Professor Anders Romelsjö, also our colleague at SWEDHR.

Editor’s note (Jinge.se):

Today I have the privilege to present a new article by our guest columnist Maj Wechselmann. She is one of Sweden’s top left profiles, and – in my opinion – she has accomplished great all along these decades in her cultural and political endeavours. Maj Wechselmann was awarded the Kurt Linder stipend in 1973 for her documentary Viggen 37, the Eldh-Ekblads Peace Prize in 1978, and the Rydöpriset 1990 “for her free speech to the memory of Olof Palme”. She was also awarded the Ecumenical prize at the Berlin Festival, the Berlinale in 1998, where she showed 3 movies. Her films have been screened at festivals all over the world. In 2011 she was awarded the Lenin-Prize (Lenninpriset) by The Jan Myrdal Society (Jan Myrdal-sällskapet), consisting of 100 000 SEK, for her filming endeavour. She is the author of the book ”Kärnkraft-farlig och förlegat” (“The obsolete and dangerous nuclear power”). Maj Wechselmann has a special connection to Ukraine. / Prof. Anders Romelsjö.

Was the MH17 shoot down a false-flag operation?

By Maj Wechselmann

At the end of 2014, aviation-lawyer Elmar Giemulla filed a lawsuit against the Ukrainian government for breach of the Chicago Convention. The Chicago Convention is an agreement entailing that each country is obliged to take responsibility for its own country’s airspace. Ukraine signed the Convention in 1993. Giemulla reasons that it was Ukraine’s responsibility to protect those foreign passengers – innocent people – by means of shutting down the airspace across the war zone. This means the 160 square kilometres where the fighting between the Ukrainian army and the separatists took place in mid-July 2014. Several aircraft had been shot down over the area the previous days.

The aviation authority in Kiev (more precisely, the air tower at the Kiev Airport), was the one guiding the MH17 into the war zone. In addition, it was this same aviation authority in Kiev who gave the MH17 the directive of flying at 1,000 meters lesser altitude – 1,000 meters under the usual cruising altitude.

Robert Mark – editor of Aviation International News Safety Magazine, states that most of Malaysia Airlines flights from Amsterdam to Kuula Lumpur fly on a route significantly further south than the route into which the MH17 was directed. Mark’s information is confirmed by the Internet site Flight Radar 24.

The British journalist Patrick Henningsen claims that MH17s route on that occasion clearly differed from the previous days’ flights, where the aircrafts received orders to avoid the war zone. According to Henningsen, it appears extremely odd that FlightAware and FlightRadar24 changed their websites after a few days after the crash – so it would look as if the previous flights were also led to the same route as the MH17. Which they did not.

In the investigative piece published at Global Research, “MH17, One Year On: What Really Happened, And Why“, journalist Patrick Henningsen posts images of the original routes of the MH17 and the changed routes commented above.

[TPB Note: Image above is from the report of Prof Michel Chossudovsky, published in “Malaysian Airlines MH17 Was Ordered to Fly over the East Ukraine Warzone“. Another report published on the aftermath of the crash shed also light on the issue of different routes assigned at different occasions to the same flight. See “Questions over why Malaysian plane flew over Ukrainian warzone“. Image below added by TPB:]

The Ukrainian Security Service confiscated the recorded tapes that Kiev flight-control towers had on the MH17. This material – although regarded as extremely important – has never been made public. And there is more information that should certainly be disclosed [Image below added by TPB].

Four days after the crash (about a year ago) the aircraft’s black boxes were handed over to British authorities, namely, the Air Accidents Investigative Branch in Farnborough, England. Since then, nothing has been heard from the British authorities on this matter. This, in comparison with the German Wings crash in France (24 March 2015), where the recordings from the black boxes were made public already eight days after the accident.

Important materials are kept secret. US-military spy satellites maintained every square centimetre of the war zone under a sharp surveillance, and photographed it. In mid-July 2014 NATO led two major intelligence operations in the region and in the Black Sea, namely the Sea Breeze 2014 and the war game Rapid Trident 2014 – which is another NATO-led international war exercise also gathering all available data. Nothing of these materials has ever been published.

The above has to be seen against the backdrop of the Russian authorities’ stance on the matter, who immediately made available all their satellite materials.

A most important thing is, however: Had the Russian separatists any chance to shoot down the MH17?

The territory controlled by the Russian separatists after the Ukraine ‘ATO-offensive’ had shrank to 160 square kilometres by July 2014. They were almost jostled to the Russian border. It was a cloudy day, and although they observed the planet, it took only one minute for the plane to fly over one corner of the separatists region (See picture of MH17s route). [Images below added by TPB]

Buk-M1-2 air defence system in 2010. Image from Wikipedia/Commons

Had the separatists BUK-missiles, really? And if so the case, would they have had the time to [prepare and] fire it? A BUK missile is in most cases a system with a mobile launching ramp, mobile logistics, separate radar device, and a separate command vehicle. Even in the case the radar device is on the launcher, it still would take a few minutes to coordinate the launching ramp.

[TPB Note: The combat-readiness time of a BUK-missile is about 5 minutes. A BUK launcher needs five minutes to warm up, and it takes 12 minutes to reload].

The actual missile is 5.5 metres long; it is designed to fly three times the speed of sound and carries a warhead of about 60 kg. Thus, in all the images showing a launching of BUK-missiles, it is visible a track (Chem trail) similar to that of a military fighter jet. No one in the village Golovka ever saw such a trail. [Images below added by TPB].

Buk anti aircraft missile launch.

Further, when a BUK-missile warhead explodes, it develops a giant fireball in less than a second (image below). That should have left the wreckage of the plane completely pulverized and charred. Yet, every single corpse from the crash victims was identified, along with a variety of unharmed toys, books and passports.

Image at Jinge.se

Michael Bociurkiw – the first OSCE officer that reached the crash site – declared in the US television channel CBS that, as he understood, the perforations / bullet-holes in the cockpit had been made by machine gun fire. Michael Bociurkiw’s declarations about being first at the crash are found at this CBS video, and located at 6 minutes and 10 seconds in the sending. Simultaneously, the CBS reportage shows an image of the perforations on the cockpit:

Peter Haisenko, a commercial airline pilot, has concluded that the MH17 was intercepted and shot down by a Ukrainian fighter-aircraft, and that it is proven: “Revelations of German Pilot: Shocking Analysis of the Shooting Down of Malaysian MH17. Aircraft Was Not Hit By A Missile“.

The West has never been able to produce an image of BUK missiles in the separatist region, apart of a quite blurry image depicting something that at best it might resemble a chassis of a launcher ramp.

The British journalist Patrick Henningsen calls the shooting of the MH17, “ a false flag operation”. If more journalists would dig as much as him, the world would be a more peaceful place.

Dramatic pictorial of the recent bombardment by Ukraine forces on Donetsk Hospital N23, Gorlovka School N°15, and other civil areas

artedenoli — Tue, 21 Jul 2015 14:46:41 +0000

On July 19, 2015, Ukraine government’s forces initiated anew the bombardment of civilian targets in Donetsk and Gorlovka. For this they used artillery pieces of 152 mm, that have been banned in the agreement on ceasefire – namely, these heavy weaponry were supposed have been withdrawn from the operation’s scenario. This entails a double war-crime: a) the targets: the hospital, school and civilian areas hit elsewhere; b) the weaponry used, banned by the agreement.

The Professors’ Blog have used several, independent sources for this pictorial. We have also included a video (uploaded by Patrick Lancaster) documenting the shelling on the hospital.

Click on still below to see a video documenting the shelling of Donetsk Hospital N23

The brave anti-war crusade of Viktoria Shilova, who demands Poroshenko’s government to stop the civil war against the people of Donbass.

artedenoli — Mon, 20 Jul 2015 12:28:00 +0000

The Professors Blog publishes new updates on the struggle in Ukraine by the Kiev-based ANTIWAR movement lead by Victoria Shilova, member of the Dnipropetrovsk City Council.

UPDATE 20 July 2015:

Ukraine. Six regions are demanding federalization.

Click on image above for the video (French subtitles). Here a translation into English of the subtitles:

“Good day, my name is Victoria Shilova, I’m a leader of the Antiwar movement and a a deputy at the Regional Council of Dniepropetrovsk. Tne parade of regions that demand their independence has thus commenced in Ukranie. No one wishes to live according to the laws of the Kiev oligarchy. It is Kiev, which kills its countrymen in Donbas, which asphyxiates its people and enterprises with the additional taxes on the retirement pensions – those that cannot afford to buy medicines because of the exorbitant prices; [It is Kiev] that deprives the young generations of any future.

Who would live under the protectorate of the Poroshenkos, Yatsenuk, Groisman? Those who fill their pockets sucking Ukraine up to the bone?

Ivano-Frankosvk and Zaporojié have declared today that they want to have a “special statute”. Previously, the Dniepropetrovsk region demanded the same statute. The ANTIWAR movement, and myself, that have worked on that project. Odessa has declared that they want to be beneficiaries of the Droit de Magdebourg. Lvov also demands the Droit de Magdebourg.

[The Droit de Magdebourg is a legislation system by which the economic activities, the rights on property, the social and political life of a city are ruled by it own system of juridical norms.]

Nikoläv has raised a similar demand. More and more regions do not wish to be subjected to Kiev economic rule; a Kiev that has ruined Ukraine; which has squeezed [the country] as if where a lemon; it has humiliated the Ukrainians and transformed them into a sub-race, into oligarchs’ slaves.

What will happen? It is going to be worse and worse.”

[Final subtitles – aprox. 18 per cent of the video – not translated].

UPDATE 20 July 2015:

ANTIWAR leader Victoria Shilova confronts Maidan propagandists with war-mutilated child victim

Click on image below for the video

UPDATE 19 July 2015:

– “Victoria, what are the objectives of your ANTIWAR movement? Why did you create it?”

– “Very simple. This is a peoples’ movement, and it is aimed at ending the war in the Donbas. This is due to the fact that the troops of the Ukrainian army and so-called battalions are being used against the civilian population. I can understand when a man with a gun fights against the man with the rifle, but I can’t understand when they mutilate corpses of women and children, including pregnant women – spreading in Lugansk and Donetsk. And when I saw the first pictures of the first bombing, I thus decided to organize the people. And it is precisely why such a movement was organised in Kiev. Now we have build it up in other 25 cities.”

(From an interview with Victoria Shilova. Original in Russian at Виктория Шилова: “Богдан Хмельницкий уже родился”).

UPDATE 30 January 2015, and other earlier updates:

Viktoria Shilova, MP at Dnipropetrovsk (Member of the Dnipropetrovsk City Council), is now awaiting trial for opposing the mobilization of the Ukrainian army against the people of Donbass (see Video-transcription below). Sources in social media have indicated she might be facing a 8 years-sentence.

SEE THE FULL UPDATE AT Viktoria Shilova, leader of ANTIWAR, facing prosecution in Ukraine. Freedom of Speech, hypocrite “JeSuisCharlie”-friends”?

These are important testimonies by a nation-wide known MP at Dnipropetrovsk City Council, Ms. Viktoria Shilova. She addressed the public on video, about essential issues of the ongoing civil war in Eastern Ukraine. Her speech also contains valuable information on the numbers of casualties sustained by the Ukrainian army during the “ATO” campaigns up to August 2014. This gives an insight on the procedures by which the Poroshenko-regime has been concealing to the public the true extent of the casualties by the Ukraine army. Here below a transcript oh her brave anti-war speech.

Note: The transcription below is a corrected text of the one appeared in the English subtitles of a video posted by Anti-Maidan in YouTube. The texts in cursive correspond to uncertain syntax found in the speech’s original translation, and which I have adapted to the context-meaning of the sentence/paragraph./ Prof. Marcello Ferrada de Noli, publisher of The Professors’ Blog.

Hello, my name is Victoria Shilova, “I’m a member of the Ukrainian Parliament, representing the Dnepropetrovskaya district.” Editor’s Note: This text which appears in the YouTube-video translation – see image at right – is seemingly incorrect. Ms. Shilova is instead – according to ” Шилова, Виктория Витальевна” (Victoria Shilova biographical article in Wikipedia (Rus ) – “Member of the Dnipropetrovsk City Council.“] I will speak in Russian, so all the Slavic brothers could understand me.

So, do Ukrainian people want war?

Please ask yourself this question first. Do you want war? Do you want innocent people to die? Do you want your relatives, family members, kids, husband or wife, your grandmother or grandfather to be killed? I’m one hundred per cent sure that your answer is NO.

Then what, for the past 4 months, has happened in Ukraine? I call it a civil war, definitely not any anti-terror operation. In my eyes, only swat teams or anti-terror units could perform an anti-terror operation. How could be possible living over eight million terrorist in Donbass?

Eight million terrorists, on its (own Ukrainian) soil, that is what Poroshenko is calling. Including infants and elderly people. What do you think, can a disabled person fire an anti-air defence system? Or may be it is an infant, like Egor Aleksandrov, who got killed in his mother’s arms. Simply killed near Kramatorsk city, was he holding a gun? Of course not.

Today the murderers are in our government.

We, the Ukranian People, replaced Yanukovich-the-thief (the former president) with Poroshenko the killer! And today, our government think that the majority of Ukrainian people are brainwashed by the propaganda of the national television. I would like to disappoint them: the latest independent social poll [show that] 75% of the Ukrainian people are against the war.

Most of them are afraid to say their opinion in public, because they could be imprisoned, interrogated, kidnapped or even killed Anything can happen in Ukraine today, because we replaced thieves with killers!

So, what happens in Donbass? 8 million people are under fire; they call me a terrorist, but what they will say of what the Ukranian soldiers from the 72^nd, 79^th and 24^th brigades are doing, when they come back? What does Nadezhda Savchenko say? Right, she says that in Donbass do live the same Ukrainians, our brothers, same people that live in Lviv, in Ivano-Frankovsk and in Kiev, and they are definitely not terrorists!

They are rebels, miners, and our citizens. But of course this is not shown on our national TV. Just because all these TV channels are owned by oligarchs! All of our national TV is owned by our biggest enemy-oligarchs.

And the oligarchs?

They are bloodsuckers. Like vampires, they suck our blood, the blood of Ukraine’s people.

For 23 years they have sucked our soul, but it is not enough for them. And now from virtual bloodsucking they have come to suck real blood, the blood of our children in Donbass, the blood of our mothers and sisters, of our sons, husbands and wives.

On the real number of casualties in the Ukraine war:

Do you know what are the real numbers of killed civilians? I will tell you. And it is the truth. There are about 6,000 civilians killed. Everyday about 170 to 200 people are being killed. The Ukrainian army is killing them with 122mm multiple rocket launchers, just because they are being told they are fighting Russian terrorists. Just because so were told by Porosenko and the national TV.

But as time passes our army realizes what it is really happening in Donbass. And everybody who has experienced the bloody war is now starting to tell the truth; against Poroshenko. They say that in Donbass they confront Ukranian people. They say that we should start negotiations. We should stop this bloody civil war.

And now. Let’s talk about casualties in the Ukrainian army:

It is about 11,000 lost soldiers. It can be proved by hacked e-mail of the Ukrainian ministry of defence. And about 19,000 if we count lost and injured soldiers.

Injured that are in hospital; but what about injured that were left behind?

And what about others, who say the truth, and being sent to mental hospitals?

Ukrainians, Ukrainian people around the world: I beg you to break the Ukrainian propaganda.

My heart suffers for people from Lviv, Drobovoche, Lugansk and Donetsk.

But today my heart hurts for people of Donetsk and Lugansk. Because children are being killed there.

And now mothers, I ask you, what would you say to this new president if your house is ruined, or worse, if your children were killed?

Would you support him? Of course not. That’s why his support is falling down, and it will continue to fall, because he is covered in blood.

And when deaths of innocent people are higher than 22,000 – including the army’s – it is impossible to hide the truth. The truth is coming out by itself and that is why we start to see a different point of view. Not only in Russia, but as well in Europe and USA. German journalists, British, Italian, and French are protesting against the war in Donbass, againts Poroshenko – who kills his own people. So what did we do, and what I, Viktoria Shilova, did? We prepared a document and gave it to the best independent lawyers in Ukraine, for them to address this matter upon our courts. And do you know what is written there?

We demand to be ruled that it is unconstitutional to perform the so-called anti-terror operation in Donbass. We demand to prosecute the people who are involved in breaking our constitution; the members of the Ukrainian Parliament who unlawfully voted in congress. They, unlawfully, approved the petitions signed by Poroshenko on the so called anti-terror operation. This constitutes unlawfully use of the Ukrainian Army against the civilian population of Ukraine.

We don’t have war. We have not officially declared martial war. Since the Martial law is not officially in effect, how could you use Ukrainian army on the territory of Donbass? Unlawful use of military reserve. And by the constitution, any Ukrainian citizen can defend himself against any aggression, protect his life.

An army cannot harm its own citizens on its soil. And it is written in our constitution. Please open this golden book, the constitution book, and see for yourself. But unfortunately we replaced the government of thieves with the government of murderers. And now blood spills all over in our country, Ukraine.

I’m addressing to all people of Ukraine.

To all who respect Bogdan Hmelnickiy, Taras Shevchenko, and to all who remember the Yellow-Blue flag created by Grushevskiy. I’m addressing to all the 75 per cent of Ukrainians who are against the war, who are for peace:

We should unite and demand the new elected government to respect the law and the constitution.

Stop the so-called anti-terror operation, the bloody civil war. And start negotiating. Do provide humanitarian aid; do help people survive the catastrophe.

To those fighting along with Poroshenko:

Why are you fighting along with Poroshenko against children of Donbass?

You can’t do it, for you will be prosecuted. People pay the price for these inhuman errors. Hague tribunal is waiting for you. That’s why our army wouldn’t listen to you anymore. And that’s why military mobilization doesn’t help you anymore. Day by day, people realize and find the truth, they don’t want to be part of your murders.

[I have changed syntaxes in the whole following paragraph, following Viktoria Shilova’s direct addressing in section above].

To the oligarchs:

You, who accumulate your capital everyday, started this war. You are the one who need this war, because then you can blame war for the economic crisis, for all what really started the war. Ukraine is in bloodshed now, thanks to you.

But Ukrainian people are against the war. Ukrainians don’t want the war.

But we want peace.

III

People:

Please, let’s unite.

Let’s protest against this war. Let us be heard, just like during the Vietnam War.

—

How long will you be bombing us? How long will you be shooting at us?

How long?

We are being bombed for months.

Please stop this! I cannot believe that you don’t have any kindness in you.

Are you not human?

What are you doing? Shooting, bombing on us?

What are you doing?

Viktoria Shilova

First Anniversary of the ODESSA MASSACRE of 2 May 2014

artedenoli — Sat, 02 May 2015 07:55:08 +0000

The massacre of over 100 workers and their families at the Odessa Trade Union Building in Odessa, perpetrated by fascist formations.

[A republication from Swedish Doctors for Human Rights “Three Reports on the Odessa Massacre of 2 May 2014”

The Odessa massacre of 2 May 2014

.

Odessa massacre hearing at EU Parliament in Brussels sabotaged by Maidan activists brought from Kiev.

.

Ex Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt commented the Odessa massacre and the use of force against “pro-Russian thugs” in Ukraine

Epidemiological estimation of casualties caused by drone strikes, by authors at SWEDHR

artedenoli — Sat, 02 May 2015 07:47:47 +0000

An injury-epidemiology & human-rights report

A republication from SWEDHR Research & Report. Vol 2., N° 15, 24 April 2015

By Prof. Marcello Ferrada de Noli Ph.D. , Prof. Marita Troye-Blomberg Ph.D.,

Prof. Anders Romelsjö Ph.D., Dr Alberto Gutiérrez Ph.D., Dr Lena Oske,

Dr. Leif Elinder, Dr Martin Gelin, and Dr Armando Popa,

all at Swedish Doctors for Human Rights

The International Committee of the Red Cross establishes clearly in Rule 7 of “Customary International Humanitarian Law”: [1]

“The parties of the conflict must at all times distinguish between civilian objects and military objectives. Attacks may only be directed against military objectives. Attacks must not be directed against civilian objects.”

But among the civilian victims of drone attacks are not only those forming part of local population collaterally damaged: It has been revealed 23 of April 2015 by several international news outlets, i.e. The New York Times [2], Wall Street Journal, or [3], Huffington Post [4], that drones strikes have killed American, European hostages amidst a number of civilians’ victims in an attack on January 2015.

Now, even The Voice of America, a newspaper not known for its criticism to White House policies, runs today the headline, “Killing of Hostages Calls US Drone Policy Into Question”. [5]

Research issues

While conducting research in the subject injury epidemiology at the Karolinska Institutet, Ferrada de Noli et al. (2004) concluded [6] that the actual number of fatalities in war-related events, such as combats or air strikes in the U.S. occupation war in Iraq, were significantly higher than those reported in the “body counting” sites, also used as sources by the media.

Concretely, a report presented at the international Injury Research conferences in Vienna, respectively Prague in 2004, noted that the figures presented by the media did not include injured individuals that died after been transported as wounded to other localities, such as hospitals or camps. These demises can occur even long afterwards the event causing the wounds, namely the combats or air strikes such as bombing or drone-targeting hits. In other words, media reports refer as a rule to only fatalities that perished in situ and at that very occasion.

The findings, which were later replicated and further developed in a Karolinska Institutet’s Master thesis [7], referred the following epidemiological problematic leading to an underestimation in the assessing of casualties:

A particular epidemiological confounding may occur when the variables of the study are ill-defined or the conceptual extension of the entities under study is used in a too broad meaning.
One example is if we assign to “casualties” both fatalities and injured victims and in the third part analysis the toll is read as only fatalities ipso facto at the time of the referred armed clash or combat.

Now, if the above estimating-problem is huge referred to regular military personnel reported as fatalities, it is just logical to conclude that such bias is higher prevalent when referred to civilian populations victims of drone-strikes. This, partly because of the areas targeted commonly correspond a) to countries with poorer hospital facilities or epidemiological administrative services, b) to areas populated mostly by poor people, that due to SEC-factors would have lesser possibilities to have their peers’ fatalities (long time after the injury-event) reported.

We argue that a similar situation occurs with the multiple reports in the international Human Rights community trying to assess the impact of drone-strikes amidst the civilian population. The reports refer partly to civil casualties derives from drone-attacks, and partly to the physical collateral damage in the humble infrastructures and habitat of the victims.

On the other hand, the wider the number of reports, the more imprecise is growing the epidemiological estimate of drone-related fatalities or drone-related injuries at all. Also, important media outlets and blog reports have focused on this issue.

Scene after one of the 415 US-drone strikes in Pakistan

The counting of civil casualties caused by US drone strikes

Table 1 reports only fatality cases. Hence, they do not include a) Victims that died long time afterwards, as a sequelae of injuries received at the strike; b) victims as the result of fatal events reported as “likely caused by drone-strike”; and c) fatalities reported as drone-strike related but that correspond to other so-called cover operations. We have made a calculation base in peak estimates. [8]

Table 2 presents the total number of confirmed strikes up to date. These figures are a “meta-estimate”, meaning that it corresponds to calculations we made based on the base of a variety of sources available (See Sourcesdown below).

Table 3 refers the total number of children killed in the operations.

Table 4 reports the total number of confirmed civilians that have been wounded in drone strikes.

Data based in updates [9] (Pakistan), [10] (Yemen), [11] Somalia, and [12] Afghanistan, by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. Other sources given down below.

Summary:

Total number of confirmed U.S.-drone strikes, N= 473

Total number of estimated fatal casualties among civilians, N= 1271

Total number of fatal casualties among Children, N= 255

Total number of injured , N= 2.181

Summary Table:

Tables per casualty category and country:

Table 1. Civilian fatalities

* Includes possible extra drone-strikes and other cover operations

** Includes other cover operations

Table 2. Number of drone strikes, cover operations

Table 3. Children killed

Table 4. Injured

Fatalities to injured ratio

The ratio killed/injured among civilians was found to be 0.58

Discussion

Our meta-estimates were sourced predominantly in the counting per country made by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, from where we extracted data only in regards to civil casualties. In the calculation of total number of civil casualties regarding the four countries listed (Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Afghanistan), we used the highest estimations given in the range [8].

In our results, it is worth to remark the relatively high lethality ratio killed/injured among the civilian casualties (Ratio= 0.58), which would indicate low expectation for survival among the civil population hit by modern drone strikes. As a reference for comparison, we calculated the fatalities to injured ratio considering all German casualties during the Allied aerial bombing in WWI, which resulted in only 0.38 [13].

The tactical usefulness of drones strikes is also questioned by a finding mentioned in a Guardian’s article [14] reporting that in the drone strikes on Pakistan and Yemen “only 12 % of victims were identified as militants”.

Finally, in the context of on-going allegations from the US and EU countries regarding fabricated “Russian attacks”, it is highly suitable to mention that while U.S. drones have killed over 1,200 civilians in countries of Asia and the middle East, Russia’s drones have killed 0 civilians, in no place in the world whatsoever.

References and Notes

[1] Jean-Marie Henckaerts & Louise Doswald-Beck, “International Committee of the Red Cross, Customary International Humanitarian Law. Volumen I, Rules”. Cambridge University Press, 2009,

[2] The New York Times, “Drone Strikes Reveal Uncomfortable Truth: U.S. Is Often Unsure About Who Will Die“. 23 April 2015.

[3] Huffington Post, “A Drone Program That Has Killed Hundreds Of Civilians Finally Killed Some That The White House Regrets”. 23 April 2015.

[4] Wall Street Journal. “American, Italian Hostages Killed in CIA Drone Strike in January“. 23 April 2015.

[5] The Voice of America, “Killing of Hostages Calls US Drone Policy Into Question”. 23 April 2015.

[6] M Ferrada de Noli, I A John, L Svanström (2004): Epidemiological Bias In Assessments Of War-Related Injuries: The Case Of Iraq. Safety 2004. P. 230 Institut Leben/Kuratorium fur Schutz und Sicherheit, Vienna, Austria. Referred in http://www.docstoc.com/docs/84208837/KIbroschyr-vers2pmd

[7] “Epidemiological Bias in Assessment of War-Related Injuries During Iraq War Between 20^th March 2003 To 20^th March 2004“. Thesis. By Ime Akpan John, MD, PhD. Supervisor Prof. Marcello Ferrada de Noli. Department of Social Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, 2005.

[8] Corresponding to the sum of highest estimates for each country reported by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, “Casualty Estimates”. In “Get the data: Drone wars”, retrieved 23 April 2015.

[9] The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, “CIA drone strikes in Pakistan, 2004 to present”. Datasheet. Retrieved 23 April 2015.

[10] Jack Serle, “Yemen: Reported US covert actions 2015”. Bureau of Investigative Journalism, 26 January 2015.

[11] Bureau of Investigative Journalism’s Drones Team, “Somalia: reported US covert actions 2001-2015”

[12] Jack Serle, “Get the data: A list of US air and drone strikes, Afghanistan 2015”. Bureau of Investigative Journalism, 12 February 2015.

[13] Figures on allies’ air raids on Germany Jul-Oct 1918 sourced at U.K. National Archives (AIR 1/1918/204/232/): 740 killed and 1,900 wounded.

[14] Trevor Tim, “The hostages killed by US drones are the casualties of an inhumane policy“. The Guardian, 24 April 2015. The Guardian figures was sourced in the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

Sources

Human Rights organizations sources

http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/press-releases/amnesty-international-human-rights-watch-release-dual-reports-on-drone-strikes

http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/reports/death-drone

http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/death-drones-report-eng-20150413.pdf

Media sources

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/drone-strikes-killing-more-civilians-than-us-admits-human-rights-groups-say/2013/10/21/a99cbe78-3a81-11e3-b7ba-503fb5822c3e_story.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/22/world/asia/civilian-deaths-in-drone-strikes-cited-in-report.html?_r=0

Research analysis and media-investigative reports

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/drones-graphs/

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/

http://www.livingunderdrones.org/numbers/

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115353/civilian-casualties-drone-strikes-why-we-know-so-little

Human rights of Julian Assange continuously infringed by Swedish institutions and media

artedenoli — Sat, 02 May 2015 07:34:43 +0000

The bearing of some Swedish journalists against Assange can be only partly explained by their political views, or the assignments of their employers. It has also to do with unambiguous ideological stances, such as motivated by a “pro-West” political culture, or even in some cases it would correspond to a straightforward behaviour of submissiveness towards power.

But it also may have to do with concepts of loyalty to Sweden as motherland, and the all Assange/WikiLeaks affair in Sweden, as commented internationally, it could be equivocally seen by these journalists as one cause of the deterioration of the Sweden’s international prestige. Thus, Assange becomes “the enemy”, or further more, as mentioned in the international press, “Sweden’s N° 1 Public Enemy”.

Besides, a discrete number of Swedish journalists serving in main media outlets are also connected with Swedish military intelligence agencies. In its turn, it is widely known that Swedish intelligence services are, according to dispatches from Swedish media, under intense collaboration with U.S. agencies. Also in this regards, the Swedish military establishment has put forward the thesis that the WikileLeaks endeavours are damaging the interests of Western powers, including those of Sweden.

This article was first published by Swedish Doctors for Human Rights in SWEDHR Research & Reports, and by NEWSVOICE, Sweden, 20 April 2015.

Human rights of Julian Assange continuously infringed by Swedish institutions and media

2swedhrRR / 2 weeks ago

SWEDHR Research & Report. Vol 2., N° 14, 19 April 2015

By Prof. Marcello Ferrada de Noli

SWEDHR chairman

One amongst the endeavours of our organization Swedish Doctors for Human Rights (SWEDHR) is the reporting and advocacy against “institutional assaults on the human rights of individuals who have denounced war crimes, or exposed serious infringements to the civil liberties of the population”. [1] SWEDHR’s Board did in February 2015 an exhaustively review of the case of Sweden VS. Julian Assange, upon denounces of transgressions on his human rights. We found the case to match the aforementioned inclusion criteria, based on the following:

a) The various exposures on war atrocities that Mr Assange has done through his organization WikiLeaks;[2]

b) The investigation initiated by the U.S. government on WikiLeaks in regards to unveiling of war-outrages events in Iraq and Afghanistan, [3];

c) The breaches on the principle of impartiality towards procedures in the legal system, done by the interferences of members of the Swedish government on the legal case, [4] and in detrimental of Mr Assange’s rights; and

d) The smear campaigns ad-hominem against Mr Assange performed by journalists employed by the two corporative monopoles governing Sweden’s main stream media – situation that has been called ‘Trial by media’ [5] [6] – and which have included the State-owned ‘public service’ outlets. [7]

Previous Research

One investigation I conducted already 2011, and that formed part of the documents presented to the London Court by lawyer Jennifer Robinson (of the defence team of Mr Assange), concluded that in a sample of media articles published by the four main Swedish newspapers (DN, SvD, Expressen and Aftonbladet; statistical analysis based in a consecutive sample of 103 articles corresponding to the total reports published in the month-period ending 17 February 2011), it was found an overrepresentation of media articles with a non-objective reporting (56 percent) on issues around the accusations or the Court proceedings in London and particularly with a negative content towards Julian Assange as a person.

A breakdown of this group showed that articles containing information mainly erroneous in content or deceiving in its formulation were 20 of the total articles in the sample. The articles omitting relevant information in the context of the article’s subject or with regard to the article’s heading – although such information was available or published by other media – was 36 percent of all articles.

Among the articles which referred Julian Assange’s personal character or clearly implied features of his personality (forty percent of total articles), far more articles (72 percent) did so by using hostile, detrimental or aggressive terms in contrast with articles using positive terms (28 percent). When comparing these variables, the statistical analysis showed a ratio of 0.38, pointing to a significant overrepresentation of negative assessments.[8]

This trial by the media, and also the unfortunate declarations of members of the government intervening in the legal case, [4] were mentioned by Judge Riddle in his verdict at the London Court. [9]

In the years supervened, these media attacks on Mr Assange have persisted. The examples are copious and I forward instead to the list in Reference and Notes down below. [10]

Aftonbladet

Recently, a group of journalists of one main Swedish daily, Aftonbladet, discussed in a panel at Aftonbladet-TV around current legal situations of the Assange case, amid a series of xenophobic or even racist formulations.[11]

Aftonbladet’s journalists Oisín Cantwell, Karin Magnusson. Lena Mellin , and Fredrik Virtanen. They laughed at Lena Melin’s racist comparison of Julian Assange’s “future” with that of miserable migrants from Romania, forced beggars at the streets of Sweden’s cities.

Journalist Oisín Cantwell opens by characterizing Assange’s legal defence from London as ”so weird, that it is not comparable with anything. In the first place, not all the lawyers are Swedish, but he has also a Spanish lawyer too [Baltazar Garzón]. Remember that [Garzón] tried to indict Pinochet and became world-famous for it. He has his fingers on this too, and it shown that he is a populist of a never-seen sorts”. [12]

What Cantwell fails to mention in this particular context: The Swedish authorities in their case VS. Assange appointed precisely the lawyer that instead defended the murderous dictator Pinochet in the London trial, Ms Claire Montgomery. Montgomery had received a world reputation of her own when she declared publicly that “Torture is not international crime”. [13]

Neither recalls Cantwell that Garzón’s justified efforts in trying to indict fascist Pinochet was also echoed byprivate initiatives in Sweden, (See my article in SvD “Pinochet måste tas inför rätta”), [14] but neglected by the government.

The Aftonbladet panel goes on advertising that the risk for an extradition of Assange to the U.S. practically does not exist. The chances for it being ”microscopic”, says Lena Mellin. And Cantwell adds that an extradition from Sweden to the U.S: would require such strong reasons, ”I don’t believe that Sweden does it”. The journalist also added that in Sweden it is the Supreme Court that decides those matters.

But Oisín Cantwell is utterly wrong about those items.

For the first, he seems to ignore in the context the secret extraordinary renditions conducted by the Swedish secret services, in collaboration with the CIA, and authorized by the Swedish government. Most notably, the wide-known case of the refugees transported from Bromma airport in Stockholm to be tortured in Egypt. [15]

Secondly, it is not the Supreme Court that has the ultimate word on issues of extradition; it is the government. Hence, the decision is conclusively political and not purely juridical. [16]

Finally, data regarding the praxis of extraditions by Sweden to the U.S. reveal that during the last decenniums all of these requests for extradition has been granted by the Swedish government, in cases in which the individual in question has been localized in Swedish territory. [17]

In the same journalist-panel, Lena Mellin utters, and ”how shall [Assange] earn his living after he gets out from there”?

Oisín Cantwell replies: ”It’s over with him. Gone from Internet-generation, Jagger [?], rebel, exposes war crimes,whatever. He is just ridiculous”.

Lena Mellin rebuts: “Believable, he shall go to schooling himself by the Swedish migrants [beggars] from Romania”.

– “That’s a good advice”, says finally the moderator of the panel, Karin Magnusson, and everybody in the panel end laughing mildly. [18]

In an article authored by journalist Torbjörn Sassersson in VoiceNews, are found further transcriptions from the referred Aftonbladet sending. For instance, Sassersson captured a sentenced uttered by Osín Catwell where he referred Julian Assange as to, “Criminals of this sort” (”brottslingar av det här slaget”). In another utterance, this time by journalist Fredrik Virtanen, he is reported saying, “He [Julian Assange], seems becoming more and more cracked”[Han verkar ju bli mer och mer havererad”]. [19]

Suspected or charged of a crime?

The newest outbreak in this series of media flaws on Mr Assange, occurred on the 17 of April 2015, when the main Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter (DN) published the article by journalist Stefan Lisinski, “Assange: Yes to interrogation in London”. In Lisinski’s text reads the following statement:

“In Sweden, Julian Assange is charged for rape and other sexual crimes on two women” (“Julian Assange är i Sverige anklagad för våldtäkt och andra sexualbrott mot två kvinnor”). [20]

In Swedish, anklagad för brott is synonym of åtalad, whose meaning in English is charged. As evidenced in the table “Context sentences for ‘anklagad för brott’ in English” (image below), the proper translation into English ofanklagad för brott, is charged with a crime. [21]

Besides the juridical meanings, in common Swedish language, “anklagad” is used as also used as synonym of “åtalad”, which means indicted. (See image below). [22]

A proper fashion in referring the juridical situation of Mr Julian Assange would have been instead using the termsmisstänkt för (“suspected of”) instead of anklagad för. The juridical distinction between being misstänkt and being anklagad is also explained in multiple layman sites [23]. But as it was pointed out in a twitter by @SWEDHR, the distinction is done by the Swedish Penal Code and referred accordingly in a variety of documents published by the Swedish Prosecution Authority. We have reviewed, for instance, “Article 6 of the European Convention. The right to a fair trial, viewed from the prosecutor’s perspective”. [24]

Conclusion: The using of “anklagad” instead of “misstänkt” (charged instead of suspected) in the case of Mr Assange is in my view not only juridical inaccurate. By ascribing him a legal status which would correspond to subjects after being interrogated by a prosecutor, and only if reasons to impeach are found, this entails a breach of Mr Assange human rights, for it means that his right to a fair legal procedure is not being respected. In fact, Julian Assange has never been charged of any crime, either in Sweden or elsewhere.

Reasons for this apparently hostile behaviour?

The bearing of some Swedish journalists against Assange can be only partly explained by their political views, or the assignments of their employers. It has also to do with unambiguous ideological stances, such as motivated by a “pro-West” political culture, or even in some cases it would correspond to a straightforward behaviour of submissiveness towards power – as I developed in “The ‘Duck Pond’ Theses. Explaining Swedish journalism and the anti-Assange smear campaign”. [6.4]

But it also may have to do with concepts of loyalty to Sweden as motherland, and the all Assange/WikiLeaks affair in Sweden, as commented internationally, it could be equivocally seen by these journalists as one cause of the deterioration of the Sweden’s international prestige. Thus, Assange becomes “the enemy”, or further more, as mentioned in the international press, “Sweden’s N° 1 Public Enemy”. Not that estrange as social phenomenon, considering that Prime Minister Reinfeldt publicly declared in 2011, “Assange has been damaging Sweden”. [25] I have discussed this issue of “loyalty” in some length at he chapter “The Swedish Media Paradox”, in my book Sweden VS: Assange. Human Rights Issues. [26].

A discrete number of Swedish journalists serving in main media outlets are also connected with Swedish military intelligence agencies. [27] In its turn, it is widely known that Swedish intelligence services are, according to dispatches from Swedish media, under intense collaboration with U.S. agencies. [28] Also in this regards, the Swedish military establishment has put forward the thesis that the WikileLeaks endeavours are damaging the interests of Western powers, including those of Sweden, and to the point to publicly declare that Assange is threaten Sweden by means of blackmail. [29] Mike Winnerstig, a high-ranked official (Deputy Director of Research) at the Swedish Defence Research Agency – institution under the Swedish Ministry of Defence – declared in the Swedish Television’s news program Aktuellt:

“WikiLeaks had from the beginning an agenda to nail principally the U.S. and its allies in different scenarios”. And he also said that Julian Assange “ägnar sig till utpressning, helt enkelt” (“simply, Assange is doing blackmail”). These sentences must however be understood in the context of the full interview at the program, which transcription is linked here. [29]

Another aspect that might fell into the anti-Assange animosity among publicist circles is precisely the independent publicist character of WikiLeaks, outlet viewed as uncontrolled and effective concurrent. [30] In the context of the nowadays importance of social media channels for news distribution, is worth to mention that while WikiLeaks on Twitter (@wikileaks) has over two and a half million followers (2,55 M), the main Swedish media outlets do not reach more than, respectively, Dagens Nyheter (@dn) 96,9 K followers; Svenska Dagbladet (@svd) 101 K; Swedish State Television (@svt) 26,8 K; Aftonbladet (@Aftonbladet) 53 K; Expressen (@Expressen) 83,9 K; and State-owned Radio Sweden (@radiosweden) 10,2 K followers.

In the view of Swedish Doctors for Human Rights, the case has had a markedly political content, being this factor prominent behind the breaches by Sweden of Julian Assange’s human rights all along this process. The disregard Mr Assange’s right to political asylum, or the reasons Sweden had for immobilizing WikiLeaks by stalling the case in London are some illustrations. We shall be commenting on these issues in a coming text.

Prof. Marcello Ferrada de Noli

Chairman, Swedish Doctors for Human Rights

References and Notes

[1] Wikipedia, “Swedish Doctors for Human Rights”. Retrieved 17 April 2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Doctors_for_Human_Rights

[2.1] Wikipedia, “The Iraq War documents leak”. Retrieved 3 April 2015http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_documents_leak

[2.2] Wikipedia, “The Afghan War documents leak”. Retrieved 3 April 2015http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_documents_leak

[3] Wikipedia, “Information published by WikiLeaks“. Retrieved 17 April 2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_published_by_WikiLeaks

[4.1.] Marcello ferrada de Noli, “Open Letter To The Prosecutor-General Of Sweden” of 4 February 2014. Published in Sweden VS Assange – Human Rights Issues. Libertarian Books, Sweden, 2014. Pages 106-108. Excerpts:

“On 11 February 2011, Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt stated in the DN and Aftonbladet newspapers, that Julian Assange had been indicted. He then went on to take a position that was biased in favour of the complainants in the case. Not only was this political interference in an ongoing case, but also it was based on untruths; Julian Assange has not been charged. The statement by the Prime Minister was:

“We have an independent judiciary which also in this case acted according to Swedish law. One has even public-indicted Julian Assange on allegations of rape”. And, “I can only regret that the rights and position of women weigh so lightly when it comes to this type of questions compared to other types of theories brought forward.”

[4.2] On 15 August 2012, Göran Haglund, Swedish Minister of Social Affairs, told the Expressen newspaper: “Assange is a very coward person that does not dare to confront the charges against him”. And he added, “If he did the things he is accused of, I think one can call him a lowlife. He seems to be a miserable wretch.”

(Source, “Hägglund om asyl för Assange: “Fegis“. Expressen, 15 August 2012. Retrieved 17 April 2015.(http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/hagglund-om-asyl-for-assange-fegis/ )

[4.3] M. Ferrada de Noli, “Swedish government using media to interfere in the legal process against Julian Assange“. The Professors’ Blog, 27 January 2012. Retrieved 17 April 2015.

http://professorsblogg.com/2012/01/27/swedish-government-using-media-to-interfere-in-the-legal-process-against-julian-assange/

[5] Marcello Ferrada de Noli, Does Sweden Inflict Trial by Media against Assange? The Professors’ Blogg, 20 February 2011. Retrieved 17 April 2015.

http://professorsblogg.com/2011/02/20/does-sweden-inflict-trial-by-media-against-assange/

[6.1] Marcello Ferrada de Noli, Trial by Media fortsätter. The Professors’ Blogg, 4 February 2013. Retrieved 17 April 2015

[6.2] Marcello Ferrada de Noli, “Journalister till tjänst i krigföringen mot Assange, och mot hederlig journalistik”. The Professors’ Blogg, 17 February 2012. Retrieved 17 April 2015.

http://professorsblogg.com/2012/02/17/journalister-till-tjanst-i-krigforingen-mot-assange-och-mot-hederlig-journalistik/

[6.3] Marcello Ferrada de Noli, “Om de upprepade anklagelserna mot Assange av svenska journalister”. The Professors’ Blogg, 17 February 2012. Retrieved 17 April 2015.

http://ferrada-noli.blogspot.se/2012/02/om-de-upprepade-anklagelserna-mot.html

[6.4] Marcello Ferrada de Noli, “The ‘Duck Pond’ Theses. Explaining Swedish journalism and the anti-Assange smear campaign”. The Professors’ Blogg, 1 December 2011. Retrieved 17 April 2015.

http://professorsblogg.com/2011/12/01/the-duck-pond-theses-explaining-swedish-journalism-and-the-anti-assange-smear-campaign/

[7.1]Marcello Ferrada de Noli, “Rigged documentary on Julian Assange in the Swedish National Television. PART 1: The Political Agenda”. The Professors’ Blogg, 15 April 2011. Retrieved 17 April 2015.

http://ferrada-noli.blogspot.se/2011/04/rigged-documentary-on-julian-assange-in.html

[7.2] Rigged documentary on Julian Assange in the Swedish National Television. Contents & Links to Parts I – V. The Professors’ Blogg, 14 April 2011. Retrieved 4 April 2011.

http://professorsblogg.com/2011/04/14/rigged-documentary-on-julian-assange-in-the-swedish-national-television-contents-links-to-parts-i-v/

[8] Rixstep News, “Assange & Sweden: Witness Statement of Professor Ferrada-Noli”. 2 February 2011. Retrieved 17 April 2015.

http://rixstep.com/1/20110224,00.shtml

[9] In the chapter “Summary of the facts found” of the Court verdict of 24 February 2011, Judge Howard Riddle concludes unequivocally in item 19 (page 10), among other: “There has been considerable adverse publicity in Sweden for Mr Assange, in the popular press.” This corresponds to a conclusion contained in my witness statement that Assange’s lawyers presented at the court. I had written concretely that my analysis pointed “to a significant over-representation of negative assessments” about Assange in Swedish media articles.

See “Court Veredict, City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (Sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court). The judicial authority in Sweden -v-Julian Paul Assange. Findings of facts and reasons”. Retrieved 17 April 2015.

http://www.infotorgjuridik.se/premium/incoming/article159944.ece/BINARY/Det+brittiska+domstolsbeslutet.pdf?fromType=branchartikel

Even the Swedish main newspaper Svenska Dagbladet, in an article authored by journalist Karin Thurfjell 24 February 2011 acknowledges that Judge Riddle concluded on the verdict issued 24 February 2011 that “there is a significant negative publicity about Assange in Sweden“. In: Marcello Ferrada de Noli, “Assange fallet visar att Karl Marx hade rätt”. Newsmill, 28 February 2011. Republished in The Professors’ Blogg, 28 February 2011. Retrieved 17 April 2015.

http://professorsblogg.com/2011/02/27/assange-vs-pinochet/

[10] Examples of media attacks on Assange:

Svenska dagbladet, a main Swedish newspaper, illustrated its 17 Feb 2011 article “Idyllic picture of Sweden is darkened” with a montage showing the notorious criminal Göran Lindberg — a world-reviled, convicted serial rapist (including the rape of a 14-year old child) – portrayed together with Julian Assange and his lawyer Mark Stephens.

A conspicuous columnist of the newspaper Aftonbladet refers 13 Feb 2011 to Julian Assange as “a paranoid idiot who refuses come to Sweden to confront trial”.

The competitor newspaper, Expressen, describes 13 Feb 2011 in its cultural page “the sexual pleasure of Mr Assange is just an inescapable element for his severe compulsive needs that are beyond. . .”

[11] Aftonbladet-TV. “Vägrar att förutse hemska attacken.” Aftonbladet Morgon Säsong 9, avsnitt 11 publicerat: 27 mars 2015 12:11. Retrieved 17 April 2015.

http://tv.aftonbladet.se/webbtv/nyheter/morgon/article72040.ab/

[12] “Det är så konstigt, så at det liknar inte till [något]. För det första det är inte alls svenska advokater, utan han har en spansk advokat också [Baltazar Garzón], och vi minns at han försökt att åtala Pinochet och blev världsberömd för det. Han [Garzon] är insyltad I det här också, och det visat sig at han är en populist av inget skådats slag”. Oisín Cantwel in the above-referred Aftonbladet journalist panel.

[13] AP, “Pinochet lawyers say torture isn’t international crime”. 26 January 1999. Retrieved 17 April 2015.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/678268/Pinochet-lawyers-say-torture-isnt-international-crime.html

[14] Marcello Ferrada de Noli, “Pinochet måste ställas inför rätta”. SvD-Brännpunkt, 6 November 2008.

https://ferradanoli.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/ferrada-noli-bring-pinochet-to-justice2.pdf

[15] Torbjörn Sassersson, “Lena Mellin, Oisín Cantwell, Fredrik Virtanen mobbar Assange och romer – Och förlorar all respekt”. NewsVoice.se, 29 March 2015.

http://newsvoice.se/2015/03/29/lena-mellin-oisin-cantwell-fredrik-virtanen-mobbar-assange-och-romer/

[16] Marcello Ferrada de Noli, “It is up to the Swedish Government, Not to the “Swedish Legal System”, to comply on pressures to extradite Assange. Part II of the series The Seven Pillars of Deception“. The Professors’ Blog, 22 January 2013. Retrieved 17 April 2015.

http://professorsblogg.com/2013/01/22/rendition-of-swedens-sovereignty-to-the-us/

[17] Marcello Ferrada de Noli, “AP journalist report from Sweden misleading on Assange extradition case”. Second-Opinion, 7 February 2011. Retrieved 17 April 2015.

http://www.second-opinion.se/energi/view/1677

[18] Swedish transcription:

Lena Mellin – ”Hur skall han försörja sig när han ska komma ut därifrån”

Oisín Catwell – ”Han är kört, gått från internetsgenerationen, Jagger, rebell, avslöjar krigsförbrytelser, whatever- Så är han är bara löjeväckande.”

Lena Mellin – ”Tror han ska gå till skolan hos svenska romerna”.

Karin Magnusson – “Bra tips”

[Alla skrattar].

[19] Torbjörn Sassersson, “Lena Mellin, Oisín Cantwell, Fredrik Virtanen mobbar Assange och romer – Och förlorar all respekt”. NewsVoice.se, 29 March 2015.

http://newsvoice.se/2015/03/29/lena-mellin-oisin-cantwell-fredrik-virtanen-mobbar-assange-och-romer/

[20] Stefan Lisinski, “Ja från Assange till Londonförhör” (“Assange: Yes to interrogation in London”). DN, 18 April 2015. Page

[21] Table “Context sentences for ‘anklagad för brott’ in English”. In Bab.la Dictionary, online. Retrieved 17 April 2015.

http://en.bab.la/dictionary/swedish-english/anklagad-f%C3%B6r-brott

[22] Image based on a screenshot from typkanske.se/ Retrieved 17 April 2017.

Typkanske.se/synonym/anklagad

[23] For instance, we may find a more simple or pedagogical explanation on the difference made by the Swedish legal system between misstänkt (suspected), and anklagad (charged), in the article “What is a suspect” (Vad är en misstänkt?). There it is summarized: “If a suspect is formally (taken) to court, he or she becomes charged” (“Om en misstänkt formellt inför rätta, han eller hon blir anklagad”). In “Vad är en misstänkt?” Published byKunskap. Retrieved 17 April 2015.

http://www.difonzo.net/vad-ar-en-misstankt/

[24] Åklagarmyndigheten, “Artikel 6 i Europakonventionen. Rätten till en rättvis rättegång ur ett praktiskt åklagarperspektiv” (“Article 6 of the European Convention. The right to a fair trial, viewed from the prosecutor’s perspective”).

RättsPM 2012:5 Utvecklingscentrum Malmö. Februari 2012.

[25] Daily Mail. “Julian Assange made ‘public enemy number one’ by Swedish PM, court told as mother demands help from Australian ministers”. 11 February 2011. Retrieved 17 April 2017.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1355924/Julian-Assange-public-enemy-number-Swedish-PM-court-told-founder-WikiLeaks-awaits-decision-extradition.html

[26] Marcello Ferrada de Noli, “The Swedish Media Paradox”. In Sweden VS: Assange. Human Rights Issues. Ed. Libertarian Books, Sweden, 2014.

[27] Marcello Ferrada de Noli, “MSM Journalists Trained by Swedish Military Intelligence”. The Professors’ Blog, 11 June 2012. Retrieved 17 April 2015.

http://professorsblogg.com/2012/06/11/the-media-the-man-the-misinformation-swedish-media-war-against-assange-intensifies/

[28.1] Mike Ölander. “CIA demanded that Sweden would expand cooperation” [“CIA krävde att Sverige skulle utöka samarbetet”]. Expressen, 6 December 2010. Retrieved 17 April 2015.

http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/cia-kravde-att-sverige-skulle-utoka-samarbetet/

[28.2] Marcello Ferrada de Noli, “Who is behind the “people’s Intelligence apparatus”? On the Swedish collaboration with US/NATO spying“. The Professors’ Blog, 12 December 2013. Retrieved 17 April 2015.

http://professorsblogg.com/2013/12/12/peoples-intel-apparatus/

[29] Marcello Ferrada de Noli, “Plan Z: the latest national chauvinist campaign anti-WIkiLeaks in the Swedish media . Saving Minister Bildt?” The Professors’ Blog, 2 March 2012. Retrieved 17 April 2015.

http://ferrada-noli.blogspot.se/2012/03/swedens-plan-z.html

[30] Marcello Ferrada de Noli, “Journalistic Jealousy’ Or Politics, Or Both?” In Sweden VS: Assange. Human Rights Issues. Ed. Libertarian Books, Sweden, 2014. Chapter, pages 88-98.

Why the Swedish prosecutor waited 5 YEARS to interrogate Assange? Political background.

artedenoli — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 14:43:11 +0000

The news refer to a refusal by the Swedish prosecutor to interrogate Mr Julian Assange lasting “almost 3 years” – and that now she decided to interrogate him in London. But this is not completely accurate, because she also refused to interrogate Assange while he made himself available in Sweden 2010.[1] Why the Swedish prosecutor authority never really intended to “finish” the pre-investigation around the “case”?

In the first place this has never been a “legal case”; only a political case. And it has not been only a political case by proxy – as the Snowden documents indicated – requested by the U.S. government [See Snowden document reveals Swedish prosecution of Assange was requested by the U.S.].[2] This is also a political case serving the ideological stances of the prosecutor and of some of the lawyers instigating the “accusations” against the WikiLeaks founder. For a brief background, see Who are behind the “Swedish prosecution” of Assange, and Why? For an extended fact-background I refer to my book Sweden VS. Assange. Human Rights Issues (free download PDF file, 340 pages].

Chief Prosecutor Marianne Ny

The stalemate of the case Assange decided by the Swedish authorities – meaning the refusal of the prosecutor to interrogate him in London – has had one and only aim: to inhibit the publicist endeavour of WikiLeaks.

According to a dispatch from Stockholm by Daily News, the prosecutor Marianne Ny “dismissed claims of any U.S. involvement in the Swedish investigation.” Her declarations are thou contradicted by facts:

The Snowden documents revealed in 2013 that the U.S. asked the prosecution of Assange in August 2010 to the handful of governments participating under US command in the military occupation of Afghanistan. Only Sweden complied – at a time with a foreign policy under the subservient rule of Carl Bildt, in its turn exposed by WikiLeaks of being secret information officer for the US.

The true tactical reason why the Prosecutor authority, through chief prosecutor Marianne Ny, has now announced she is ready to interrogate Assange in London, it is because the Swedish Supreme Court has recently decided to take up the case in view of “the conduct of the investigation and the proportionality principle”. This is unequivocally referred to the prosecutors’ conduct in carrying/not-carrying the investigation. And this in its turn anticipated the dismissed of the case by the Supreme Court.

All the “new” reasons adduced now by Marianne Ny to explain “changing her mind” appears as nonsense, for in the main, the situations she refers to have existed in exactly the same legal and/or practical fashion year after year.

The new move by prosecutor Ny and the recent declarations by lawyers of the firm Bodström and Borgström (Bodström has been linked as main actor in the secret collaboration of Sweden with the CIA in the extraordinary renditions of refugees in Sweden, to be transported to torture camps elsewhere) only show that the U.S. government will not give up its plan A: The “Swedish” case against the WikiLeaks founder.

Plan B is to get Assange arrested in the UK on charges of abandon the house arrest at the opportunity he sought political asylum at the Embassy of Ecuador.

My contention is also that the “Assange case” in Sweden has served the ideological stances of several of the actors from the part of the “prosecution” and the lawyers of the “accusers” [3] (More in Duckpond in Swedish legal system), “the police investigation“, and the forum of extremist right-wing “feminists”.[4] For details on this I refer to the following chapters in the aforementioned book:

Was The Reopening Of The Sweden Case, Part Of The US Request To Prosecute Assange By Any

Means? Page 19.

Prestige Of Sweden’s Rulers Deadlocks Case Assange. Page 67.

“Operation Stalling”. Explaining Sweden’s Reluctance To Conduct Assange’s Interrogation In London. Page 99.

[This post will be under continuous update]

References and Notes

[1] The US government approached Sweden’s authorities on the situation around Julian Assange and the WikiLeaks exposures of 2010, in August that year. The Swedish press reported on the meetings in Stockholm. Secondly, as reported in both the Phillip Shenon and NSA documents (the report by Greenwald & Gallagher in Intercept), the US contacted all countries with forces in Afghanistan with the request to initiate prosecution against the WikiLeaks founder. As being Sweden a principal country participating with military troops in Afghanistan, it is beyond discussion as to whether Sweden was also among the nations contacted by the US for that purpose. My conclusion being that it is highly likely that the reopening of the “case Assange” by Swedish authorities on the 20 of August 2010 was part of the US request of the 10 of August to prosecute Julian Assange by any means.

But it is not only a design to simply “prosecute Assange”. The meaning of the strategic design in the context of the referred US request was not Assange as person, but the concept was (is) to immobilize WikiLeaks. For this a long protracted process had to be brought in place.

Follows a sequence around the European Arrest Warrant issues by the Swedish prosecutor against Julian Assange,[21] and where the conclusion emerging is that the real target of the EAW was not the detention of Assange, but the creation of an extradition process:

Assange arrived to the airport around noon, and even chosen to change to a later SAS flight of his preferences. He finally left Arlanda Airport for Berlin Tegel at 17.15. Latest around 16.55 he would have gone through airport security where, with the usual heavy police presence, staff at the gate leading to the departure hall checked his passport (if not already checked at the desk), boarding card, etc. Besides, the police have all the passengers’ lists in advance.
According to the prosecutor office in Gothenburg, Assange was “detained in absentia” already at 14.15 on 27 September 2010. [24] Normally, such order goes to all police units in the country. Why wasn’t he detained at the airport? It could not be that they missed his identity. Quite the opposite: because they knew his identity at the airport desk or at the control gate, the police (or government officials, or whoever agency was operating) managed to take the laptops from Assange’s checked-in suitcase. [22] Besides, he stayed around five hours at the airport’s premises. They just couldn’t have missed him.
Assange was never informed about the “detention in absentia”. Further, Assange’s laywer Björn Hurtig had obtained an agreement from the prosecutor Marianne Ny that Julian Assange “was free to leave Sweden”. [23]
In fact, Assange’s lawyer received the communication on the “detention warrant” issued my Marianne Ny (the warrant that Elisabeth Massi Fritz is writing about in connection to Assange’s departure for Berlin on the 27 of September), as late as the 30 September 2010. This means three days after that it was issued by the same Marianne Ny.
In support of this claim I refer here to the Supreme Court document “Agreed Statement of Facts And Issues. Between: Julian Paul Assange (Applicant) V. Swedish Prosecution Authority (Respondent)”, hearings 1-2 Feb 2012,. In Item 17, page 5, it reads: “On 30th September 2010, the Appellant’s counsel [Björn Hurtig] was advised of the existence of the arrest warrant.”

The EAW immobilized Assange and, to a greater extent, WikiLeaks’ activities. In previous analyses, I have demonstrated that it is beyond doubt that this case is political motivated. There isn’t a genuine legal case behind the charade of the Swedish Prosecutor Authority and the plaintiff’s prejudiced lawyers. This is not the first time that this sort of behaviour has been seen in Sweden.

What would have happened if Assange had been detained at the airport? The prosecutor would have had to interrogate Assange within a few hours. Assange would have requested the presence of a lawyer or that the interview was videotaped. Afterwards he would have been released, because in terms of the evidence available to the prosecutor, there would have been nothing new that had not already come up in the preliminary investigation, conducted by prosecutor Finne (who had previously dismissed the case on this evidence). He would have never been held incommunicado, as he will certainly be if he comes to Sweden under the extradition terms that resulted from the EAW.

Only the EAW could have produced the political benefits created by this scenario, which enables a prolongation of Assange’s prisoner status. My “stalling-the-process hypothesis” [24] was correct from the start.

[2]. Firstly, the Snowden document says “including Australia, United Kingdom and Germany”. Nevertheless, the document also provided the inclusion criteria: “nations with forces in Afghanistan”. One amongst these was (is) Sweden, conspicuously; one of the few nations, and longest lasting, participating in the U.S. led military occupation of Afghanistan.

Secondly, This request was put forward on the 10 of August 2010. In the document “Affidavit of Julian Paul Assange”, we read that it was around that date when Sweden took decisive steps to “consider filing criminal charges against Julian Assange” – as requested by the U.S. government.

[3] Thomas Bodström is the senior partner, together with the above-mentioned Claes Borgström, of the law firm that represents one of the supposedly accusers in the Swedish case VS. Assange. Mr. Claes Borgström have made no secret on that it was he who took the initiative of reopening the case! In this constellation of “radical-feminists” politicians and collaborators with the disgraceful events mentioned earlier, is worth to mention that Claes Bodström was the Swedish ombudsan för genders issues, while Marianne Ny the chief prosecutor for an special unit dealing with issues associate with women abuse. She was already known in Sweden for advocating “preventive detention” of suspected men accused (not charged) of abusive behavioir. Both offices, Ny’s and respectively Bodström & Borgstrom’s, are stationed in the City of Gothenburg.

Further, Thomas Bodström was also in the same organised ideological faction within the Social Democratic Party called the “Brotherhood”, another member of this faction was one of the so-called accusers. The faction consists of Christian believers and other religions’ disciples. While Thomas Bodström was one of the highest-ranking politicians within the faction, the nominal woman-accuser held the position of secretary.

For his part, Thomas Bodström’s colleague, Mr. Claes Borgström, sat together with prosecutor Marianne Ny in the same governmental committee planning to extend the sexual-crimes legislation of Sweden.

Thomas Bodström and Claes Borgström are in the same ideological line with that of Chief Prosecutor Marianne Ny. Ms. Marianne Ny, at the time of reviewing the case presented to her by Claes Borgström, still held a government assignment as a special committee member of a new legislation body studying legislative reforms to exactly the same type of offences described in the “accusations” against Mr. Assange.

[4] Some Swedish “Radical Feminists” Declared Julian Assange A Symbolic Issue. Page 202 of the book Sweden VS Assange – Human Rights Issues.

The PROFESSORS' BLOG – Science, Culture & Human Rights For All

Sputnik News interviews Swedish Doctors for Human Rights Chairman, on UN Security Council draft resolution ref. MH17

On the The UN Security Council draft resolution of 29 July 2015, to convene an international tribunal to investigate the MH17 crash. Questions by Michael Hughes, U.S. correspondent of Sputnik. Answers by Marcello Ferrada de Noli.

Read also

MH17 – The facts and the libel

MH17 – The facts and the libel. A false-flag at expense of 298 civilian lives would be a double war crime

1. The speculations

2. The escalating of NATO presence in the Ukraine civil war corresponds to an escalation in the libel around the MH17 causes. After a year evidence stills is kept secret. Is there such a evidence?

3. So, who needed “international proportions” of such a war? Who needed the MH17 to be shot down?

Swedish Radio’s illegal media-blackout

Notes and References

Related posts

The geopolitical aim in the Ukraine Civil War, and the economic consequences for the Ukrainian people – By John Goss

History of the Ukrainian civil war, February 2014 – February 2015

What the civil war has economically cost the people of Ukraine

References

Was the shooting down of MH17 a false-flag operation?

Was the MH17 shoot down a false-flag operation?

Dramatic pictorial of the recent bombardment by Ukraine forces on Donetsk Hospital N23, Gorlovka School N°15, and other civil areas

The Professors’ Blog have used several, independent sources for this pictorial. We have also included a video (uploaded by Patrick Lancaster) documenting the shelling on the hospital.

The brave anti-war crusade of Viktoria Shilova, who demands Poroshenko’s government to stop the civil war against the people of Donbass.

The Professors Blog publishes new updates on the struggle in Ukraine by the Kiev-based ANTIWAR movement lead by Victoria Shilova, member of the Dnipropetrovsk City Council.

UPDATE 20 July 2015:

Ukraine. Six regions are demanding federalization.

UPDATE 20 July 2015:

UPDATE 19 July 2015:

UPDATE 30 January 2015, and other earlier updates:

First Anniversary of the ODESSA MASSACRE of 2 May 2014

.

Odessa massacre hearing at EU Parliament in Brussels sabotaged by Maidan activists brought from Kiev.

.

Ex Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt commented the Odessa massacre and the use of force against “pro-Russian thugs” in Ukraine

Epidemiological estimation of casualties caused by drone strikes, by authors at SWEDHR

An injury-epidemiology & human-rights report

A republication from SWEDHR Research & Report. Vol 2., N° 15, 24 April 2015

By Prof. Marcello Ferrada de Noli Ph.D. , Prof. Marita Troye-Blomberg Ph.D.,

Prof. Anders Romelsjö Ph.D., Dr Alberto Gutiérrez Ph.D., Dr Lena Oske,

Dr. Leif Elinder, Dr Martin Gelin, and Dr Armando Popa,

all at Swedish Doctors for Human Rights

The International Committee of the Red Cross establishes clearly in Rule 7 of “Customary International Humanitarian Law”: [1]

“The parties of the conflict must at all times distinguish between civilian objects and military objectives. Attacks may only be directed against military objectives. Attacks must not be directed against civilian objects.”

Research issues

The counting of civil casualties caused by US drone strikes

Summary:

Summary Table:

Tables per casualty category and country:

Table 1. Civilian fatalities

Table 2. Number of drone strikes, cover operations

Table 3. Children killed

Table 4. Injured

Fatalities to injured ratio

Discussion

References and Notes

Human rights of Julian Assange continuously infringed by Swedish institutions and media

SWEDHR Research & Report. Vol 2., N° 14, 19 April 2015

By Prof. Marcello Ferrada de Noli

SWEDHR chairman

References and Notes

Why the Swedish prosecutor waited 5 YEARS to interrogate Assange? Political background.

References and Notes